You were wrong. Now shut the f*ck up.
Seriously, I'm still not over it.
Q: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?
A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/
http://web.archive.org/web/20060427065632/http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair
Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMDs_in_Iraq#2003_Iraq_War
In the buildup to the 2003 war, the New York Times published a number of stories claiming to prove that Iraq possessed WMD. One story in particular, written by Judith Miller helped persuade the American public that Iraq had WMD: in September 2002 she wrote about an intercepted shipment of aluminum tubes which the NYT said were to be used to develop nuclear material. It is now generally understood that they were not intended (or well suited) for that purpose but rather for artillery rockets. The story was followed up with television appearances by Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice all pointing to the story as part of the basis for taking military action against Iraq. Miller's sources were introduced to her by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi exile favorable to a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Miller is also listed as a speaker for The Middle East Forum, an organization which openly declared support for an invasion. In May 2004 the New York Times published an editorial which stated that its journalism in the build up to war had sometimes been lax. It appears that in the cases where Iraqi exiles were used for the stories about WMD were either ignorant as to the real status of Iraq's WMD or lied to journalists to achieve their own ends.
In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he "fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Let me be clear: the people bolded above should *NEVER* be listened to EVER AGAIN by anyone in this country because they made BAD DECISIONS that cost lives. In my opinion, they and their co-conspirators should be taken into custody, prosecuted as profiteers and criminals, and then jailed at Gitmo for the rest of their natural lives.
Please don't think my list should be limited to those mentioned. If I, as an average American citizen removed from the halls of power, was able to know IN ADVANCE that the calls for war were fraudulent, then I want to know why the "leaders" representing my interests in Washington in both the Senate and the House of Representatives weren't able to figure it out as well.
Those people should also be investigated, prosecuted as needed, and run out of Washington as Ignorant Supporting Morons who didn't stop the deaths of thousands.
War is not just a card game; it should have accountability to it.
That's my take on it, anyway.
P.S. And this history lesson is one of the MANY reasons I don't want "drone strikes against American citizens"!!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Is it ok if I copy and paste and send it to a couple of Move On buddies?
I seem to remember reading it....kick ass poem by the way...
http://archives.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=wnews&title=Holder:%20Won’t%20criminalize%20terror%20policy%20disputes&id=109288&eddate=04/24/2009
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder left open the possibility Thursday to prosecuting former Bush administration officials but ruled out filing charges merely over disagreements about policy.
"I will not permit the criminalization of policy differences,” Holder testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee.
"However, it is my responsibility as attorney general to enforce the law. It is my duty to enforce the law. If I see evidence of wrongdoing I will pursue it to the full extent of the law,” he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177
The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.
Eric Holder got the message.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1
As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.
"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."[/div
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler"
or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Now, that was rich.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=
%3Fw%3D700&imgrefurl=http://carlanthonyonline.com/2012/01/23/first-ladies-the-state-of-the-union-address-private-speech-editors-and-public-policy-symbols/&h=250&w=220&sz=24&tbnid=Zhpm8yELuxqb-M:&tbnh=84&tbnw=74&zoom=1&usg=__inZpL742hts2mzhV0CN99k2q8DI=&docid=IbRurLDMQMa-EM&sa=X&ei=BEM5UYaRC4izyAHoi4CgCw&ved=0CEUQ9QEwAg&dur=3533
Were they mad then despite that the worst president ever allowed it to happen? Hell no!
and absolutely nothing happens to him! It's insane... especially when you think that Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Reps essentially for lying about a blow job.
Someone up thread said spittin' mad forever. Yeah, that's me too.
I suggest watching the South Park episode "Good Times With Weapons" if you haven't. Not only is it one of the best episodes to date, but had some really commentary on our society. In the episode the kids lie their way into buying ninja weapons at the town fair. Then Cartman throws a ninja star straight into Butters' eye. The kids then spend the rest of the time figuring out how they're going to lie their way out of this one but getting Butters to a real doctor requires them to sneak past their parents. Cartman does so by using his self imposed "power of invisibility" to get past the stage. But he's really just stripping his clothes off and walking in front of them. So the next day the whole town is up in arms. And what were they angry about? It wasn't that Butters was nearly blinded by a ninja star - it's that they saw Cartman's penis. It was about the 2004 Super Bowl but it explains pretty well why we went after Clinton and not Bush. 
~k&r
Those who keep making excuses and rationalizing it are exposing their true psycopathic/sociopathic selves to those who see it for what it was.
They springboarded the actualization off the back of 9/11.
Just the facts: (I'll save the Building 7 theories for my betters) September 11 happened because Bushco were stupid, incompetent, arrogant and ignored the evidence (Aug 6 briefing, et al). So the worst attack on American Soil since the Revolutionary War happens under their watch. What do they do? Parlay their incompetence into an illegal war, a year and 1/2 later. Play on the fear, the need for Americans to see justice. Use the vulnerability of the citizens they've sworn to protect (and failed to) for a war that would line their own coffers, leave thousands dead in its wake, and bankrupt our economy.
And for that: From their first impeachable offense of letting 9/11 happen, to the ginning up of Iraq, to even planning exactly when to drop the first bomb (They didn't want to wait till it was too warm in the summer), to literally playing fast and loose with our money (remember the bricks of cash they were throwing like footballs?) and--oh, yeah--KILLING THOUSANDS AND NOT GIVING A SHIT, what punishment do they get?
What, I ask you?
(crickets)
And yeah, like you Ida, I was an average American who knew EXACTLY what was going on 10 years ago. We had a huge protest in Feb 2003 here in SF, in tandem with the ones all over the country. And we were all ignored. Scott Ritter was villified, Hans Blix was rendered ineffectual because NOTHING was gonna stop Evil Dick from getting his war on.
the elites. Some might have good intentions for the masses but IMO the majority of ruling elites couldnt care less about us except for how we can service them. Until people figure this out, this shit will continue. Oh, it might die down slightly. Bush's group were overly enthusiastic and started the masses thinking there was no hope. So the ruling elites backed off. But you wont see the Bush war criminals punished by the ruling elites. In fact it would not surprise me if they all got pardoned.
If Occupy taught us anything, it certainly revealed how desperate the ruling elite are to crush the masses at the first sign of trouble.
Hold on and NGU.
That includes Hillary and Kerry too. Boo Hooo...... cause I agree with you!